Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
In discussing why we believe in the Immaculate Conception, it’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about in the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain — the meaning of "immaculate" being “without stain”. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a fallen nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.
While in the West the doctrine has been taught somewhat negatively – the emphasis being on Mary’s sinlessness - the East has tended to put the accent instead on her abundant holiness. The colloquial term for her is Panagia, the All-Holy; for everything in her is holy.
Although this doctrine is not explicitly stated in Scripture (as indeed the Trinity is not explicitly stated), there is much implicit evidence that the New Testament Church believed in the sinlessness and holiness of the Mother of God.
The primary implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which tend to render the expression "highly favoured daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favoured daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, but rather it extended over the whole of her life. She must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."
However, this is not to imply that Mary had no need of a saviour. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way - by anticipation.
If we consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: she was not simply taken out of the pit; she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become subject to original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Saviour than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner.
St. Luke also provides us with further evidence that the early Church believed in the sinlessness of Mary. In the first chapter of his gospel, he goes to great pains to recount the event of the Visitation in parallel terms to the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant by David in 2 Sam 6. The following contrasts are notable:
1) 2 Sam 6,2 “So David arose and went…set out for Baala of Judah” Lk 1,39 “And Mary rising up in those days, went…to a town of Judah”
2) 2 Sam 6,9 “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Lk 1,43 “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
3) 2 Sam 6,14 “And David danced with all his might before the Lord” Lk 1,44 “the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”
4) 2 Sam 6,11 “ And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months.” Lk 1,56 “And Mary abode with her about three months.”
When taken in conjunction with Gabriel’s earlier promise to Mary that “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.” (Lk 1,35) in similar language to that describing the descent of the Shekinah on the ark, it is clear that St. Luke considers Mary to be the fulfilment of the type of the Ark of the Covenant.
In Luke’s mind she is the ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old ark contained the Word of God written on stone, the bread from heaven in the form of manna, and the priestly staff of Aaron; so the new ark contains the Word of God enfleshed, the true bread of heaven, and the high priest of the New Covenant.
Up until its disappearance 500 years earlier the ark had been the holiest thing in all creation – even to touch it or look into it was to bring death or plagues on non-Levites. Similarly then, the ark of the New Covenant would have been viewed as the holiest created being by the early Jewish Christians. Mary’s holiness was by the specific design of heaven, just as the old ark was given as a specific design from heaven.
This understanding of Mary as the ark is not just limited to the Lucan tradition. We also find Johannine understanding of this teaching in the Apocalypse. If we omit the medieval chapter and verse numberings, we see that John’s vision, following the judgement of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant, reveals:
“And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:” Apoc. 11,19-12,1
While some commentators see in the figure of the woman a corporate type of Israel or the Church, these can only be secondary meanings as the same vision reveals two other figures which both have primary individual identities: Satan and the woman’s child – Jesus Christ:
Apoc 12,3 “And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: Apoc 12,9 “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”
Apoc 12,5 “And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.”
Thus many fathers of the Church as well as recent Popes have clearly identified the ark/woman as Mary, the Holy Mother of God. This should not be surprising as John is here recapitulating the whole of revelation. Not only is he portraying the breaking in of the New Covenant, but of the new creation itself. The early chapters of Genesis where we see the man and woman in conflict with the serpent at the beginning of the old creation, are now recapitulated with the new Adam and the new Eve in conflict with that same serpent, though this time with positive results. Revelation has come full circle with the final triumph of God over the devil through the woman and her seed as first foretold in Genesis 3,15.
This is why early fathers such as St Irenaeus, St Ephraim, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine could clearly identify Mary as the new Eve as well as the Ark of the Covenant. For in a way that Eve in her disobedience could only be physically the mother of all the living, Mary is now revealed as the true mother of all the living in Jesus Christ:
Apoc 12,17 “And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
It is only reasonable to conclude, then, that just as the first Eve was created without sin and filled with sanctifying grace, so the new Eve who was to “untie the knot of disobedience” wrought by the first, should be also so conceived. Or, as Cardinal Newman put it:
“Now, can we refuse to see that, according to these Fathers, who are earliest of the early, Mary was a typical woman like Eve, that both were endued with special gifts of grace, and that Mary succeeded where Eve failed?” Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception. Cardinal John Henry Newman.
Although arguments from authority can often be the weakest form of argument, as Catholics, it is worth finally pointing out that the ultimate reason for believing in the Immaculate Conception is that this doctrine has been infallibly defined as being revealed by God, and as such our salvation depends on adhering to it:
"Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honour of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart." Ineffabilis Deus, Bl. Pope Pius IX
All believers are saints, but its up to God to name them such, not men who know nothing about the real heart and soul of the person.
I call the apostles by the same names they called each other in the Bible, of course you don't believe the Bible has the athority to set the example, do you?
Your claim that the Catholic church adopted them is a result of your mis interpretations because the Church willingly invites all into Her fold as adopted children - but where you stumble is in the fact that it is they who have not only adopted the RCC for their own, they did it because they knew that She is the only way to God.
They would never have recognize the church they were a part of just 50 years later. They would never have accepted its horrendous history of murdering other believers, or using forged documents to gain political power, not to mention the sin that's in it now. I guess you just call those warts, don't you? :)
JH :)
They are referred to as a group, similar to the way they do the church, but not one time do they place a name with the word saint.
I guess it's another one of your traditions, huh? I suppose it does sound better if you add the word saint to a name, especially if your going to pray to him.
JH :)
"We" don't!
Yeah right. You say that as though he had no conviction in his belief or in his conversion.
He understood that the church Christ established was a group of believers who were the members of the body of Christ, but Christ was the head, and not some man.
He understood exactly what he said. Remember, he was one of the most intelligent and learned folks of his time. Just because you suppose he was accustomed to contradicting himself for thew sake of your own personal convenience while the ovewhelming proof to the opposite is abundant does not make it so.
Had you been able to read it, when he actually wrote it, it would have probably said, “except in the universal assembly can a man have salvation.” At the time he said it, I may have agreed with him, but your Church is no longer that assembly.
You are obviously unfamiliar with his works. I cautiously suggest for you to check out St. Augustine's, "The City of God". "Cautiously" because I hope you do not mis-interpret what ever you read of it. Google it, "City of God" Saint Augustine.
What is the earliest extant copy you have of that quote you posted from Augustine? I’d be interested in seeing it.
That quote came from the Haydock Bible. My copy is only about two hundred years old. http://www.catholictreasures.com/cartdescrip/11050.html
I see you’ve followed “Catholic Apologetics 101,” pretty well. You managed to divert the subject from Mary giving birth of four other boys and a couple of girls, then to Sola Scripture, and now finally into your Church History, which is all smoke and mirrors that could easily leave a sane person babbling to him self and cutting out little paper dolls. :)
The subjects has gotten too general for a discussion, but if you care to go back and work on whether or not Mary remained a virgin, I’ll be glad to accommodate you.
I have not followed 101 anything. You mis-quote Catholic saints to try to suit your own theology, same as you mis-quote your own Bible to show that the Bible is the "sole authority" while ignoring your own Bible's condemnation of the same.
I have already showed you that your interpretation of Our Lady having other contradicts what my Bible and my Church teaches. You are stuck in your solo scriptura, 2Peter 3:16 will once again prove itself true if you choose to remain solo scriptura.
Thats your definition based on your personal interpretation of your bible. In reality, the verses that you mis-quote according to your private interpretation contradict those who wrote them because "You search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and that they give testimony of God" yet you cannot find God under those (your) terms. Mark 5:39,40.
Saint Matthew and the other OT and NT writers are, sadly, the most mis-quoted and mis-interpreted saints of all. The teachings of St. Augustine are in perfect harmony with each and every lesson of my Bible - as are the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas More, and on and on the list goes.
They would never have recognize the church they were a part of just 50 years later. They would never have accepted its horrendous history of murdering other believers, or using forged documents to gain political power, not to mention the sin that's in it now. I guess you just call those warts, don't you? :)
The Church, from its beginnings, has been attacked repeatedly by the devil and is once again under attack. The devil does not bother with those who he figures are already his, he always goes after the ones who are not his with the most verosity. Such is what we see happening today.
Thats right, its the same tradition St. Paul teaches about in 2Thes. 3:6
Gal. 1:8,9: if anyone, if we ourselves or an angel from heaven, should preach a Gospel at variance with the Gospel we preached to you, let him be anathema.
etc. etc. etc.
I realize that your ploy is to go off in as many different directions and bunny trails as possible, that way you can never be pinned down to any one belief, so I will deal with these scripture you post because that’s what trusting the word is all about.
2Thes. 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
Gal. 1:8,9: if anyone, if we ourselves or an angel from heaven, should preach a Gospel at variance with the Gospel we preached to you, let him be anathema.
Please answer these questions.
What or who’s traditions are they to stand fast with?
When did they learn them?
Who would have given them the verbal word?
Were the letters Paul wrote to the churches the epistles he referred to?
Did Paul mean that they could develop traditions from anyone other then what he preached?
Did Paul tell them they could develop traditions from others who preached a different gospel then he did?
If only Paul preached the true Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, then isn’t it true that anything that isn’t in his Gospel would be at variance with it, and therefore be accursed?
Did Paul mean that anyone who preached from his time on would be fine to make tradition of?
If an angle came to you from heaven, and preached a different gospel then what Paul taught, how would you know it was different if you didn’t have his epistle to compare it with?
Please answer these, since it was you who posted them to support your own belief in traditions.
JH :)
The unwritten traditions of the Apostles. They are no less to be recieved than their Epistles. The Apostles did not deliver all things that were to be believed by writing, but many things by word of mouth only, which have been perpetuated by tradition, and these traditions, no less than the writings of the Apostles, are deserving of faith.
When did they learn them?
Don't know the exact date off hand but I would say it was when some days after Our Lord's Ascension, the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the most Blessed Trinity, sent down by Jesus triumphant, descended upon the Apostles, as audible as wind, as visible as a dove, to evoke the messages of Christianity from raging tongues of fire, and to make the men who announced it to the world sheer targets for blazing martyrdoms that God will ever remember and the world can never forget.
Who would have given them the verbal word?
God
Were the letters Paul wrote to the churches the epistles he referred to?
Yes. They, along with his verbal teachings and admonitions.
Did Paul mean that they could develop traditions from anyone other then what he preached?
No.
Did Paul tell them they could develop traditions from others who preached a different gospel then he did?
No.
If only Paul preached the true Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, then isn’t it true that anything that isn’t in his Gospel would be at variance with it, and therefore be accursed?
Yes.
Did Paul mean that anyone who preached from his time on would be fine to make tradition of?
No.
If an angle came to you from heaven, and preached a different gospel then what Paul taught, how would you know it was different if you didn’t have his epistle to compare it with?
Because of what I have been taught by word as well as by reading.
Q- In What or who’s traditions are they to stand fast with?
Stubborn- The unwritten traditions of the Apostles. They are no less to be recieved than their Epistles. The Apostles did not deliver all things that were to be believed by writing, but many things by word of mouth only, which have been perpetuated by tradition, and these traditions, no less than the writings of the Apostles, are deserving of faith.
In Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus condemned the Pharisees, and called them hypocrites because they condemned him and his disciples because they ate bread with out washing their hands.
The Pharisees had no come back, because their traditions were not backed by the Old Testament scripture. It’s too bad they didn’t tell him they were unwritten traditions from the founding fathers, because everything that happened since Adam was not written down. Lol
Q- When did they learn them?
Stubborn- Don't know the exact date off hand but I would say it was when some days after Our Lord's Ascension, the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the most Blessed Trinity, sent down by Jesus triumphant, descended upon the Apostles, as audible as wind, as visible as a dove, to evoke the messages of Christianity from raging tongues of fire, and to make the men who announced it to the world sheer targets for blazing martyrdoms that God will ever remember and the world can never forget.
In other words, you have no idea? Send up some smoke and go on to the next question, huh? :)
Q- Who would have given them the verbal word?
Stubborn- God
Are you saying that God came down and gave the Catholic Church its verbal traditions?
Q- Were the letters Paul wrote to the churches, the epistles he referred to?
Stubborn- Yes. They, along with his verbal teachings and admonitions.
And no one was there who took notes, or wrote it down? It was their little secret just between them and God. SHHHHHhhhh :)
Q- Did Paul mean that they could develop traditions from anyone other then what he preached?
Stubborn- No.
Oh, just those that God gave them at their secret meeting?
Q- Did Paul tell them they could develop traditions from others who preached a different gospel then he did?
Stubborn- No.
Then God must have given them their traditions from Paul’s epistles?
Q- If only Paul preached the true Gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, then isn’t it true that anything that isn’t in his Gospel would be at variance with it, and therefore be accursed?
Stubborn- Yes.
Then if God gave them traditions that weren’t in Paul’s epistles, then is God accursed?
Q- Did Paul mean that anyone who preached from his time on would be fine to make tradition of?
Stubburn No.
Your definitely Stubborn, and I’m certainly confused over what you believe.
Q- If an angle came to you from heaven, and preached a different gospel then what Paul taught, how would you know it was different if you didn’t have his epistle to compare it with?
Stubborn - Because of what I have been taught by word as well as by reading.
What if he told you it was one of those secret traditions God taught while you were gone to the bathroom, and you missed it?
I think it’s much safer to depend on Gods written word. I just can’t picture Him getting angry at me for believing everything He said, but I wouldn’t be that confident if I had to tell Him I ignored his word and followed gossip and hearsay. :)
JH :)
I think it’s much safer to depend on Gods written word. I just can’t picture Him getting angry at me for believing everything He said, but I wouldn’t be that confident if I had to tell Him I ignored his word and followed gossip and hearsay.
You are contradicting Scripture, and the Faith, therefore the Church thet God established here on earth to teach, govern, sanctify and save all men. 2 Timothy 2:2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.
Best advice I have for you is to start praying the Rosary.
It’s too bad you can’t read just what it says. Paul told Timothy to only teach those things that many faithful witnesses have heard him say previously, and are willing to confirm that he said them.
Catholics would have us believe that they were on the inside, and heard and knew things that no one else was privy to hear. If a faith doesn’t need biblical support for the traditions it teaches, then there was no need for scripture or God’s word in the first place.
That’s why whole cloth traditions are condemned. They need biblical roots, or there nothing more then the traditions and commandments of men.
You seem to believe that if someone brings a tradition into the Church that was never taught in the Bible, and if others like it, and begin to emulate it, then eventually it becomes an official Church tradition, and it has the same weight as the biblical commands.
If a Pagan attended the early Church and practiced one of their Pagan rituals, such as making the sign of “T,” for Tamaz on their chest, and everyone thought how neat it looked, and soon everyone was doing the same thing, that could end up a Church tradition.
Since there is no biblical support for it, it would be a man made tradition, and not a command of God.
Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Best advice I have for you is to start praying the Rosary.
Another man made tradition? You have traditions for your traditions, and my guess is that a few sincere words from the heart mean more to God then a thousand memorized words that are not from the heart but by rote.
JH :)
You follow your book that is different than mine - mine was here first so now what?...You might want to add this to your Bible
Then the creator of all things commanded, and said to me: and he that made me, rested in my tabernacle,......I am the mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope. In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue. Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits. For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honey and the honeycomb. My memory is unto everlasting generations. They that eat me, shall yet hunger: and they that drink me, shall yet thirst. He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin. They that explain me shall have life everlasting. All these things are the book of life, and the covenant of the most High, and the knowledge of truth.
144 posted on 09/21/2004 4:27:48 PM PDT by DManA
Wisdom! I am learning a lot but the level of contempt and attitude shown by some here (one in particular) is certainly not very Christian. Christ was the Messiah, who died for our sins so that we might live forever with He and the Father in heaven. ALL else proceeds from that whether you agree in the IC (I do) or not is not (AS)important as believing in Christ's divinity and sacrifice. Are they important, YES, but lets remember this is a family fued. We are all still on the same team here.
I will not call my Baptist bretheren "Heretics" because of their views, not will I accept their counter-claims as valid. The goal is to grow in Christ working together to discover the truth to the questions that divide us.
Mary's Immaculate Conception: A Memorable Anniversary
Ineffabilis Deus: 8 December 1854 (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception)
Why do we believe in the Immaculate Conception?
John Paul II goes to Lourdes; reflections on the Immaculate Conception
Your Praises We Sing--on the Dogma of the Proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, Dec. 8th
Eastern Christianity and the Immaculate Conception (Q&A From EWTN)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.